tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 02 19:33:13 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2098 18:13:32 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
>> The {-'e'} disambiguator is always optional. It is a convenience, not a
>> requirement, and if it ceases to be convenient, don't try to use it.
>
>I believe that it is a bit more than optional. For clarity's
>sake, it is generally necessary, exept when it adds a poetic
>sense to leave the head noun somewhat vague, as is the case for
>{Hovmey ghajbe'bogh ram rur peghmey ghajbe'bogh jaj}.
Okrand has given us unmarked relative clauses a number of times, and marked
clauses nearly as often. Your suggestion that leaving it unmarked is for
poetic use is not supported by canon. You made that up. Some of the
unmarked sentences are not poetic, and some of the marked ones are.
UNMARKED:
Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj (PK)
cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD (SkyBox S25)
'ang'eghQo' quv Hutlhbogh jagh neH ghobtaHvIS ghaH (TKW 61)
nuHmey nISbe'bogh So'wI' jomlu'pu' (SkyBox S33)
Hom Hutlhbogh gham (KGT 27)
Hoch jaghpu'Daj HoHbogh SuvwI' yIvup (KGT 107)
MARKED:
qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'
Ha'quj'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv
butlh ghajbogh nuv'e' yIHo'
nobmey qembogh yIrIDnganpu''e' yIvoqQo'
Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'
I think you have embraced the {-'e'} disambiguator a little too closely. It
is used for additional clarity. Adding pronouns is also used for additional
clarity. So is using a noun redundantly. These are not *required*. {-'e'}
is optional.
>> Until a Klingon comes and tells us (or Okrand) that {-Daq} does not
belong
>> in this position, I do not see any revolution coming.
>
>Until a Klingon comes and tells us (or Okrand) that {-Daq} does
>belong in this position, I don't see this kind of construction
>occuring much with either of our interpretations. It is
>DEFINITELY not as simple as you seek to paint it. Okrand has NOT
>condoned your interpretation any more than mine.
But he has. {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoHpu' neH} shows the head noun as the
subject of the relative clause and as the locative of the main sentence, and
{'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He} shows the head noun as the
object of the relative clause and as the locative of the main sentence (or
rather, of the purpose clause). Both are predicted exactly according to my
model. Yours would have the questionable ??Sepmey Sovbe'lu'boghDaq
lenglu'meH?? or ??Sepmey'e' Sovbe'bogh vay'Daq lenglu'meH??, but they do not
appear. My approach is supported by canon. Yours is not.
Are these sentences ambiguous? They can be. Can they be worded better?
Most of the time I'm sure they can. That does not make them wrong.
Sometimes they're not ambiguous. Sometimes context will help resolve the
ambiguity, as it does in so many other cases. I'm not saying that your idea
cannot be right (though that's what you seem to be saying to me), but I am
saying that all you have is speculation, and I shall treat it as such: with
respect, but I won't use it or promote it until there is more evidence to
support it. In the meantime, I shall use and promote that which has been
shown to be correct.
SuStel
Stardate 98091.6